No abstract

No abstract

ImportanceEach year, the National Cancer Database (NCDB) collects and analyzes data used in reports to support research, quality measures, and Commission on Cancer program accreditation. Because data models used to generate these reports have been historically stable, year-to-year variances have been attributed to changes within the cancer program rather than data modeling. Cancer submissions in 2020 were anticipated to be significantly different from prior years because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study involved a validation analysis of the variances in observed to expected 2020 NCDB cancer data in comparison with 2019 and 2018.ObservationsThe NCDB captured a total of 1 223 221 overall cancer cases in 2020, a decrease of 14.4% (Δ = −206 099) compared with 2019. The early months of the COVID-19 pandemic (March-May 2020) coincided with a nadir of cancer cases in April 2020 that did not recover to overall prepandemic levels through the remainder of 2020. In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the proportion of early-stage disease decreased sharply overall, while the proportion of late-stage disease increased. However, differences in observed to expected stage distribution in 2020 varied by primary disease site. Statistically significant differences in the overall observed to expected proportions of race and ethnicity, sex, insurance type, geographic location, education, and income were identified, but consistent patterns were not evident.Conclusions and RelevanceHistorically stable NCDB data models used for research, administrative, and quality improvement purposes were disrupted during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. NCDB data users will need to carefully interpret disease- and program-specific findings for years to come to account for pandemic year aberrations when running models that include 2020.

34 Background: Since enactment of Healthy People 2000 (ODPHP.gov, nd), a focus has been to reduce disparity by achieving health equity across all people. We examined disparity for five cancer quality measures with high performance rates (PRs) ( > 85%). Methods: Five measures developed by the Commission on Cancer and endorsed by the National Quality Forum were evaluated for potential ethnicity, insurance, and Census Division disparities. Data from the National Cancer Database were used to examine hospital-level PRs on adjuvant chemotherapy for ER neg breast ca (MAC), hormone therapy for ER+ breast ca (HT), resection of at least 12 nodes in a colon resection (12RLN), and adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon ca (ACT) measures for patients diagnosed in 2015. Patients receiving radiation after breast conservation surgery (BCSRT) were diagnosed in 2014 to ensure complete treatment follow-up. Results: Significant disparities exist for all measures on ethnicity between non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics. The least variation of ethnicity occurred within 12RLN (non-significant). Variability within insurance was found most frequently with HT and BCSRT measures, not insured/Medicaid versus Medicare, and not insured/Medicaid versus Private respectively. Location disparity exists for all measures, with South Central states’ significantly lower PRs. Further investigation should focus on access, insurability, and delivery of care to better understand and eliminate disparities. Conclusions: Cancer quality measures, which show high performance nationally, show significant performance variability reflective of on-going disparities of care. [Table: see text]